General Hux's End of the Republic Speech

I agree that in a democracy, especially one the size of the US, there needs to be countervailing positions to the majority. The problem that I see is
that for all the money issues the Dems are no different than the Rep's. This is exactly why, for the first time in my life I voted for a 3rd party
candidate for President. The Dem's ineffectiveness in the last 8 years is one of the main reasons for the spewed hatred toward them. Many, many
people voted for Obama because he promised change, and we got none. I predict at the end of Trump's term, we'll have the same exact situation. There
will be the die hard Trump supporters saying he did great and the large majority of the American public will be worse off than they were at the
beginning of the term.

Great post. In the grand scheme of things both Party's are basically the same. Trump upset the apple cart as he doesn't care about either Party and
is seen as a threat to the status quo.

Hopefully his lasting legacy is the dismantling of the two party rule we have been under.

So if Father Trump dismantles having two party rule what type of government is your design?

I've posted many times (as have many others) about the dangers of either party weakening.

But what I think we are seeing today is really the emergence of 4 or 5 parties, so I'm less animated about the peril I previously perceived was
true.

As for most of your post, maybe you should paint with a finer brush. Most of what you said isn't true.

I'm not advocating one party over the other. Having 4 or 5 parties is meaningless. There are always two positions on every issue. People who want
change and people who want to preserve the status quo.

How can any of my OP not be true. You said, "most of what you said isn't true." Just read every post in this thread and it is proof people see
absolutely no value in having a minority party in this country. What am I missing in my OP that you consider as "most of" and "isn't true" ?

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: dfnj2015
Each side decries the lose of democracy when they lose. Deal with it and get a better message and set of policies out to the voters. Then when you
win, you can talk about how the will of the people prevailed.

I never decried the loss of Democracy in my OP. You are making stuff up. Most people don't want Democracy or having liberal Democrats in power. I
was trying to find out if the majority believed in democracy which if you read all the posts in this thread the majority with and opinion are
expressing a resounding no.

originally posted by: pavil
Sorry to be blunt. But the Republic would have survived if you had actually nominated the right person for the times. Cough,Cough Sanders. The
Clinton Empire did you in, not Trump.

Sanders had 15 to 20 thousand people show up at his rallies. With wealth inequality at such dangerous levels I can easily imagine a Sanders type
candidate coming to power and restoring FDR 90% taxes. Here's FDR's 1936 speech at the Democrat National Convention. This rhetoric sounds a lot like
Sander's rhetoric:

"An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the
standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into
their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too
many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government."

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

What I find most interesting about this thread is there is not a single person who made a post saying having a minority party in our democracy has
value.

You make a nice post. But Republicans have said many times over Liberal Democrats are the cause for everything that is wrong in this country. I
really think most Republicans deep down do not want to have a democracy or allow liberal Democrats to have any shred of power. They just have no
backbone to express how they really feel or what type of government they really want. People want General Hux to be president. People want STRONG
leadership in government. People are NOT interesting in weak leadership involving compromise and partial solutions to our problems. People want
control, power, and domination over our country's problems.

If the leftists had a magic wand and could pass everything they wanted to pass and have complete control over all aspects of government, we would be
living in a Communist-style Soviet Union.

Freedom is the antithesis to democrats and republicans.

Or living with a failed ACA...lol

In what way do you think the ACA failed? An healthcare insurance provider cannot deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. And companies
selling sub-par policies which paid out NOTHING and just took people's money have been eliminated. Free-loaders with no policy at all are now taxed
to pay their fair share. Why would you be in support of people who were showing up at hospital emergency rooms free-loading while passing on all the
costs to people who actually pay for healthcare?????

They want Dominion and control alright. Aka conformity to their way of thinking. But so do most people in general. But oh well, you'll never get
everyone to think the same. Besides they don't all agree amongst themselves either.

Cons are also traditionalists so they are less accepting of anything they aren't familiar or comfortable with. They'll always try to force others to
submit to their traditions, even personal ones.

Libs do it too, only it's slightly different. More sjw type stuff. But neither will ever be accepted.

Strong leadership doesn't mean dictatorship. Not in a free nation of people. How would that even work?? (It's hard to even say free nation today
without abusing the meaning of "free", but oh well.)

Besides, who cares about some repubs and their desire to control everyone. We live in a country where the Democratic process is what we have. It has
it's problems but it's better than a dictatorship. They may like the idea now because they think they'll be in charge of it. But when they aren't
they'll cry the whole time. Why listen to anyone who can't see their own hypocrisy?

I agree that in a democracy, especially one the size of the US, there needs to be countervailing positions to the majority. The problem that I see is
that for all the money issues the Dems are no different than the Rep's. This is exactly why, for the first time in my life I voted for a 3rd party
candidate for President. The Dem's ineffectiveness in the last 8 years is one of the main reasons for the spewed hatred toward them. Many, many
people voted for Obama because he promised change, and we got none. I predict at the end of Trump's term, we'll have the same exact situation. There
will be the die hard Trump supporters saying he did great and the large majority of the American public will be worse off than they were at the
beginning of the term.

Great post. In the grand scheme of things both Party's are basically the same. Trump upset the apple cart as he doesn't care about either Party and
is seen as a threat to the status quo.

Hopefully his lasting legacy is the dismantling of the two party rule we have been under.

So if Father Trump dismantles having two party rule what type of government is your design?

Father Trump? Where is that coming from. Still the same Democracy with more options. Those entrenched in power and their funders will still support
two party rule. It won't be easy or sudden but the precedent has been set. You may not like Trump but he broke the system. Both Party's leadership
dislike him. He broke through their firewalls to get elected.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: dfnj2015
Each side decries the lose of democracy when they lose. Deal with it and get a better message and set of policies out to the voters. Then when you
win, you can talk about how the will of the people prevailed.

I never decried the loss of Democracy in my OP. You are making stuff up. Most people don't want Democracy or having liberal Democrats in power. I
was trying to find out if the majority believed in democracy which if you read all the posts in this thread the majority with and opinion are
expressing a resounding no.

originally posted by: pavil
Sorry to be blunt. But the Republic would have survived if you had actually nominated the right person for the times. Cough,Cough Sanders. The
Clinton Empire did you in, not Trump.

Sanders had 15 to 20 thousand people show up at his rallies. With wealth inequality at such dangerous levels I can easily imagine a Sanders type
candidate coming to power and restoring FDR 90% taxes. Here's FDR's 1936 speech at the Democrat National Convention. This rhetoric sounds a lot like
Sander's rhetoric:

"An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the
standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into
their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too
many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government."

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

What I find most interesting about this thread is there is not a single person who made a post saying having a minority party in our democracy has
value.

I disagree with your premise , we all value Democracy over any other option. It's been perverted by money and Corporatism ect, but it's still the best
option.

In a two party system, the minority party has little influence or say over the course of the direction of the country. That's why people aren't saying
much about it, they have little influence if they don't control a branch of Congress to be Blunt.

You seem to think Liberal equates with the whole of the Democratic Party. I would contend that the biggest wings of the Dems are Corporatist
Democrats, far Leftist SJW type Democrats and a distant third the classic liberal/populist.

The first two do nothing for me, hence my disdain for them. Classic liberals respect the ideals of our Constitution and our Rights, I can appreciate
them for that even if I may not agree with every position they have. You can debate a classic Liberal, not so much the other two strains of the modern
Democratic Party.

For the Record most of the Republican Party is #e as well, with similar groups as the Democrats.

You seem to not like multiparty governments and like the 2 party system. The two party system by it's nature, minimizes the minority party and both
parties work together to eliminate any third party threats to their sharing of power.

First of all, let's the facts straight. ALL governments in the US of A are to be a republic, not a democracy. The difference being that the
individual rights of the people are superior to any will of the majority in a republic. But, this constitutional guarantee has been negated by our
self serving politicians and as a result, our governments are operating as a democracy. For instance, the legislatures today claim a better right to
the fruits of your very own labor, and a better right to your property, than you have. Don't pay taxes and see what happens. We have the unalienable
right to property, but rest assured, that right has been alienated. The people created government to serve them, as a servant government and reserved
the sovereignty for themselves. Over time, corruption got its grip and the servants realized that it is much more profitable for them to abrogate our
rights, so the servants sought the seat of their masters and moved to claim the sovereignty away from the people. Sound familiar? So anyone here
wanting to preserve 'democracy' (the rule of the majority without consideration of individual rights) are cheering on their own enslavement.
And from that aspect, ALL parties and politicians are on the same page.

In what way do you think the ACA failed? An healthcare insurance provider cannot deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. And companies
selling sub-par policies which paid out NOTHING and just took people's money have been eliminated. Free-loaders with no policy at all are now taxed
to pay their fair share. Why would you be in support of people who were showing up at hospital emergency rooms free-loading while passing on all the
costs to people who actually pay for healthcare?????

Are the 15+ million illegals taxed..lol

The idea was good, but they went about it the wrong way. At the time it was estimated about 12 million needed something like that so they affected 330
million. ACA is rather sub par too, not too many can afford the ever growing premiums now as major health insurers are backing out... millions lost
they plan when their company saw it was cheaper to pay the fines than maintain their coverage. What was 12 million is more like 40+ million who now
depend on the government plan...

Medicare is being cut by 700+ billion because of ACA and young people have elected not to join so elderly will see a hit on the quality of their
healthcare. "80% of ObamaCare's new Medicaid enrollees previously had private insurance plans..."

Not good..."Projected shortfalls in primary care will be up to 31,100 physicians by 2025…"

I could go on and on, but you get the point I think...This is a lot negative effecting the whole country to help about 5% of the population...And they
knew it would fail too..

I am in no way a democrat.. I’ve got my own individual views. I watch both sides arguments and pick who ever has the most efficient plan. Screw
emotion or feelings.

I am however 100% anti propaganda..and imho it is not the dems who are pushing the worst and most damaging propaganda.

Do democrats really want to talk about most of that stuff, or are they replying to the republican slippery slope allegations??

Democrats didn’t pass a law requiring people to let transgenders use whatever bathroom.
The republicans passed a law saying they could not use whatever bathroom.

Democrats respond and say that’s messed up.

The gop replies “you just want pedophiles near my children!!”

Did the democrats make that an issue or did the gopdrag them into it??

No elected democrat has ever said they wanted to ban all the guns. The only thing even proposed has been the ban on manufacturing and selling new
assault rifles.. with all the millions in population grandfathered in and still perfectly legal..

The gop rebuttal??

“They are repealing the second amendment and taking all the guns!!”

Are you sure your not mixing up what the gop says the dems want to do, and what they actually have said??

I simply stated what I do and do not want to talk about. And yes I stated HRC was a rotten candidate. I would like to see good candidates from both
parties, perhaps we can get decent leadership next term.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.